The Economist strikes me as very liberal, and not particularly conservative. And by that I mean the traditional definition of liberal, not Democratic-Party-of-the-US liberal.
Conservatism is a relative term. You can be a conservative right-winger, a conservative socialist, a conservative liberal or any other kind of conservative as long as your social situation fits it. Many articles by the Economist are conservative in that they intend to defend and conserve the status-quo, especially when dealing with foreign policy.
You're using conservativism vey much in American GOP understanding of the term, which has stopped being conservative a while ago.
Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
Economist literally had a massive article what is conservativism. And - SPOILER - UK Torries used to be conservative, while GOP has been reactionary/populist for a while now.
> Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
In a society with a capitalist (including most modern mixed) economy, “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal, because the status quo elites in a capitalist society are those empowered by and dependent on economic liberalism for their position.
(“Classical conservativism” is not relative, and is defined relative to the pre-capitalist status quo, and is specifically tends to be about the defense of the titled, landed aristocracy. But, because that is no longer an established elite, there's not a lot of classical conservatism left to defend.)
> upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal
Nowhere I claimed that you cannot be economically liberal. You intentionally removed context out of my claim that conservatives will use economic policy to make an ad hominem attack.
> As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
That's a very narrow understanding of conservativism.
> “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal
Conservatives have often taken steps to restrict market forces, that forced radical changes. So no - you cannot generalize conservativism to "economically liberal".
But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
> But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
...which amounts to “lots of people have used it lots of conflicting ways, some even denying it has meaning.” Which, as someone with a political science degree with cobsiderable exposure to both political philosophy and more common political dialogue, I’m well aware of. If you accept that whole space of use and non-use, the upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal at the same time is more, not less, ridiculous, so perhaps you posted your response one comment two far down the thread?
Market forces are radical. They can force incredible change. I don't think that meddling in the market and supporting the status-quo are mutually exclusive.
I also don't think that being economically liberal means letting the market destroy itself or push large societal changes.
I am not. I don't think the GOP definition of conservatism admits conservative socialism.
You definitely can be a conservative liberal. The American society by and large is founded on liberal principles. All you have to do to be a conservative liberal is to stick to 18th-19th century liberalism, in being a so-called "classical liberal".
I agree that the GOP is reactionary more than conservative.
Classical liberalism - complete laissez faire market, no government interference and individual wealth creation. Today's libertarians are closest to classical liberals.
The term classical liberal exists specifically, because conservative liberal creates a massive ambiguity.
And getting back to The Economist - they aren't conservative at all. It's a modern liberal magazine, that routinely promotes wealth redistribution and support for the poor.
This is a frustrating comment chain for me to read. The person you are responding to clearly is already familiar with the concept of classical liberalism, and you are responding as if they are a dunce.
